re: Am I the only person who doesn't want driverless cars?

quote:

---

A self-driving car carrying a family of four on a rural two-lane highway spots a bouncing ball ahead. As the vehicle approaches a child runs out to retrieve the ball. Should the car risk its passengers’ lives by swerving to the side—where the edge of the road meets a steep cliff? Or should the car continue on its path, ensuring its passengers’ safety at the child’s expense? This scenario and many others pose moral and ethical dilemmas that carmakers, car buyers and regulators must address before vehicles should be given full autonomy, according to a study published Thursday in Science.

---

Furthermore, this isn't even close to a moral dilemma. A) The car has right of way, the kid shouldn't be in the street, so if they do run out abruptly, they are in the wrong. B) Four lives are more important than one, all things being equal, which is how a machine would treat them.

Plus, what parent lets their kid play close to the road that parallels a steep cliff?

quote:

---

So motorcycles will become illegal, or can they be driverless, too?

---

I was just thinking about this as well. I believe high speed motorcycle riding belongs on the track, but motorcycles are also one of life's great joys. Likewise, Hyabusas are a necessary part of natural selection and Darwin awards.

I actually kind of see economics forcing people to quit driving, i.e.: driving will become a luxury.

Think about it. Right now, we all have car insurance because, as a whole, humans are shite behind the wheel. We all pool our money together and when one of us goes full retard and is at-fault, that money is used to make everyone in the accident whole again. Enter the self-driving car. They're going to be FAR safer than human drivers, though not perfect. Accordingly, it's going to cost far less to insure those cars simply because they'll be found at-fault in accidents at a far lower rate than human drivers. Now, insurance companies will still insure human drivers, but as the insured pool of humans shrinks due to more and more people choosing not to drive, the pool of available cash to pay out settlements shrinks. At some point, the shrinking number of drivers will have to trigger rate increases for the human drivers in order to ensure that the insurance company always has the available cash to provide the coverage they are offering. At some point, insurance to cover you driving your car is going to be so expensive compared to letting the car drive itself that most people just won't be able to afford it.

At least that's how I see it. I could be wrong. There's a first time for everything.

quote:

---

Am I the only person who doesn't want driverless cars?

---

No, but I'm not on your side.

I'm on the side of safety, I'll gladly give up driving for how much safer i'll be, in theory.

quote:

---

Just because some people will opt for driverless cars and chill with a beer or three while cruising from point A to point B doesn't mean you have to.

---

Until it becomes law....a looooong time from now. But I'm certain it'll happen decades from now.

I don't understand what some people find so enjoyable about driving. I imagine they are the ones driving old pickup trucks 7 mph under the speed limit parallel to another vehicle with their left arm out the window tapping on the outside of the door to a country song.

It's illegal to drive at fast speeds. There is an endless supply of idiots on the roads. Cops and cameras look for any chance to steal money from you. Parking is oftentimes a bitch. You can't drink. Cars are very expensive, as is the insurance.

IMO, bring on the robots! I'll sit in the front seat, roll down the window, and crack open a beer.

No way, Jose